JFLAG excludes homeless MSM from IDAHO Symposium on guess what? .......... HOMELESSNESS!

I am still trying to recover from all that has been happening in recent times with community challenges but now to see that on May 17, 2013 International Day Against Homophobia and Transphobia, IDAHOT a symposium named in the founder and general secretary of the defunct Gay Freedom Movement at the Courtleigh Hotel to discuss as the flyer above states homelessness yet the very representative group was NOT invited or present at the event. A war of words has since erupted and sadly I caught on late being involved in several other activities within the last few weeks, included interestingly in the ongoing spat are the former Program's Manager of JFLAG now residing in Canada, other stakeholders who are straight allies and JFLAG's management itself.

So heated as the rift become that a statement over the signature of the Executive Director Mr. Dane Lewis has come to hand which read as follows:

Response to lack of homeless at Larry Chang Human Rights Symposium

We appreciate the frustrations of all those who wonder why the voices and bodies of homeless individuals were absent from the panel at the inaugural Larry Chang Human Rights Symposium. This was not a matter of oversight, as the organization agrees that the voices in the homeless community are critical if we are to find solutions to the issue of high levels of homelessness among LGBT Jamaicans.

The coordinators of the symposium agonized over the potential absence of this group’s perspective and spoke at length about the need to be inclusive. Ultimately, they decided against inviting some of the men who are currently homeless to speak for ethical reasons. Many will disagree on this point, but we felt that fêting and tokenizing any of these men before returning them to the street while the rest of us returned to our homes was problematic and difficult to justify. In human and social development work, there is much criticism of groups who fetishize the suffering of vulnerable and marginalized groups—regardless of how great an organization's intentions are. Knowing fully well that the absence of homeless individuals from the panel would raise eyebrows, the organization made a principled decision that we stand by.

At the same time, even if it would be unethical to invite a homeless person to speak at the symposium, the coordinators of the program believed that including the perspectives of formerly homeless members of our community would help to shed some light on the homeless experience. During its operation, J-FLAG has supported many homeless individuals who turned to the organization soon after they were evicted from their homes and communities. Most were able to find a home in other communities, some sought asylum and now live abroad as refugees, while a few others remain homeless. Some of the most vocal individuals who have experienced high levels of displacement now live in the Diaspora and while many of them would be willing to return to Jamaica to speak about their experiences, they were unable to travel to Jamaica because of the conditions of their resident status in their adopted countries. We know this because we reached out to individuals who we felt were at the place in their journeys where they would be comfortable speaking to a public audience about intensely personal and painful experiences. Speakers were sought locally as well, but we were unable to find anyone who was willing to come out publicly. This is a concern we must wrestle with as J-FLAG seeks to move out of the shadows and increase the visibility of our work.

The Larry Chang Human Rights symposium was a public event open to our partners, members of the community and the public. Representatives from the media were invited and we also hired a photographer to cover the event. Recognizing the importance of documenting our programs for online audiences and for posterity, the event was live streamed and was recorded. We are now thinking about the best way to share the recording without jeopardizing the safety or violating the trust of the speakers and the attendants of the symposium.

J-FLAG interfaces with homeless LGBT group through its Crisis Intervention Programme. Both J-FLAG and Jamaica AIDS Support for Life (JASL) have participated in and facilitated numerous consultations with the subset of homeless in the Golden Triangle area in closed sessions as well as meetings with the New Kingston police, the Member of Parliament for the area, representatives of the business community, the mayor and the councillor. Despite efforts to collaborate with other NGO's and government institutions the task to launch a comprehensive project to house and rehabilitate these vulnerable individuals has fallen squarely on J-FLAG's lap. While we believe a collaborative effort that involves all stakeholders would be more successful, we recognize and take ownership of the responsibility that we have to respond to the needs of this segment of our community. J-FLAG expanded its programming for the homeless community and we have had up to three members of our staff working almost exclusively to support this group.

For over a year, J-FLAG sought a residential location for a safe house program. Until very recently, we also facilitated a feeding program that was suspended because of difficulties coordinating it without a main office in addition to funding constraints that we hope to resolve soon. The absence of homeless men from the symposium should not suggest that J-FLAG is not aware of and does not attend to the needs of these individuals. Without question, in the last year, they have received more of J-FLAG's resources on a per capita basis than any other subgroup in our community. We do not bemoan this fact. These men and transgender women are undeniably the most vulnerable group in our LGBT family and we continue to do all we can to support them.

Larry questioned the potential absence of homeless individuals in his presentation and Yvonne McCalla Sobers, convener of FAST (Families Against State Terrorism) noted the concern as well during the discussion segment. We are thankful that they raised the matter, because it shows that our community feels comfortable holding J-FLAG accountable to its mission. As representatives of the LGBT community in Jamaica and advocates for inclusivity, we agree that the absence of the perspectives of current or formerly homeless individuals may have reduced the quality and the impact of the symposium. We, too, are disappointed but we are content that we tried our best to bring together a cohort of speakers that could help to spur conversations about the treatment of LGBT people in Jamaica. This is one in a number of conversations that needs to be had about the issue.

As noted in our invitation, the symposium considered high levels of homelessness among Jamaican LGBT people as an outcome of the hostile cultural environment. While their unique perspective was not featured on the panel, some of the presenters spoke at length about the need to humanize the homeless in our community and to critically assess how our treatment of them betrays our self-hatred. The symposium also explored homelessness as a philosophical concept related to citizenship. Through various agents of socialization, we are taught that gender and sexual minorities do not belong in our communities. LGBT people therefore understand that they can be evicted from their communities without notice and might be forced to flee the island. LGBT

identities in Jamaica are shaped by an understanding that our sexual and gender identities do not align with our cultural and national identities. This creates angst, dissonance and ambivalence in our sense of being Jamaican.

The documented dangers of identifying and being recognized as LGBT in Jamaica led countries like Canada, the United States and the Netherlands to grant refugee status to those who can prove that there is a reasonable possibility that someone may try to hurt them. This is the first time J-FLAG hosted a forum to openly discuss the situations that lead to asylum and the process for obtaining refugee status in the United States, which is one of the major locations that LGBT Jamaicans seek refuge. The symposium also offered us an opportunity to honor the work of Larry Chang, and to situate the modern movement for LGBT equality in Jamaica as a decades-long struggle as opposed to a 21st century phenomenon.

J-FLAG welcomes feedback from our community. We will continue to develop and sustain programs that address the needs of the most vulnerable among us. We know there is much more work to be done and so we will continue to work towards a successful rehabilitation program. If anyone has any additional concerns or suggestions for how to improve our programming, not just around homelessness, we encourage you to send us an email at admin@jflag.org, send us a message on our Facebook page, or ask us a question here. Myself, Jaevion and Javed monitor this space and we are more than willing to listen and learn as we try to make J-FLAG a more effective organization.

Dane Lewis
Executive Director

ENDS

 Yvonne McCallah Sobers of Families Against State Terrorism makes a point during the symposium, apparently she was the one who asked the all important question as to the absence of the homeless men

Singer Tanya Stephens of "Do You Still Care" fame makes her presentation

Carole Narcisee of the Jamaica Civil Society Coalition makes a point 

No report has been released since the symposium or as at the preparation of this entry.

Sad that this is where we are with this issue with marked culture of secrecy continuing as open discourse on social media groups is quashed (to hide something?) and trying to justify this most egregious error in judgement of the representative population being left out on a discussion about them, I was invited to attend but never bothered and thankfully I made the right decision. Some of the comments now coming to light have reflected my concerns about the service delivery and response to a long standing problem of the lack of proper leadership and foresight coupled with an elitist corporatist mentality, for e. g.

"What you do here is exactly what an organisation like the JCF is so skilled at doing to those perceived as its critics, Twisting words, dealing with personalities rather than issues or principles, assuming that comments are intended to "wear down individuals" rather than to challenge the organisation to do better at what it was set up to do. And then there is the labelling and the name-calling that says more about the person who uses the terms - like "callous and uncaring" - than those who are the targets of the barely veiled cussing. Been there and experienced that for over a decade when people corn get mash.

Hopefully, the defensiveness can end soon, and some problem-solving can begin. Meantime, have fun!!""............... your position sounds like something I hear from politicians when I advocate accountability when police kill people's children in what the police claim to be a shootout. So good people will say something like this, to borrow from your post,"I would just love for us to keep our discussions at the level that does not tear down an entire infrastructure just to make a small point. The people who work in [the police force] have real lives and they live in a real society. When we disagree with them by attacking them and they get worn down by that pressure, we gain nothing. In fact, we all lose. One thing that marginalised people must unlearn is the division around inessentials. We have been so thoroughly schooled in divisiveness it has become difficult for us to see the essentials." In other words, don't critique in the hope of improving the work of the JCF (or J-FLAG in the present discussion) because they will see a critique as an attack on the hardworking men and women of the force." 

"It is my view that a lot of the rot in this country was caused because too many people kept quiet about things that were just not right. So those who spoke out were silenced or silenced themselves. As a result, coming generations pay the price for deterioration that could have been stopped if leaders had put their egos aside for a while, and used the criticism to grow the organisation and the country."

"As an example, I was in a meeting 20 years ago between the then Minister of Education and a group of students. One student asked the Minister what he was going to do about the violence in schools that most were not aware of at the time, it was so relatively minor. The Minister became irate and construed the concern as an attack. he said that matters like that should be raised with the police as security was not an educational matter. The Minister may well have seen the youth as trying to "tear down the infrastructure to make a small point." The lesson the youth learned that day was to mistrust his instincts and keep his opinions to himself no matter how valid he felt his concerns to be. Today, violence in Jamaican schools is close to endemic."

"Smart organisations prefer to have criticism in the open, and regard critics as friends intent on seeing the organisation improve. For the good of the LGBT community, JFLAG needs to appreciate take the criticisms as providing the organisation with evaluation that consultants would charge hefty fees to do only half as well and with none of the heart. J-FLAG needs all the help it can get. but some of the sentiments expressed on this thread suggest that J-FLAG leaders are trying to jettison those who have supported the cause before the organisation was created. I for one was trodding with Brian Williamson from the 1980s."

"The request to move the question to private e-mail does not say much for transparency. The question is not about someone's private business, but about a public event. Trust comes with transparency, and secrecy resembles fear of being found out, unless the questions relate to personal and private matters."

The best one:

Inviting the homeless to a symposium on homelessness would be relevant only it it were assumed that the topic needed the input of those actually experiencing homelessness. Just as it would have been useful to have HIV+ persons invited to a symposium on living with HIV. 

However, i am learning that the symposium was really about the homelessness of gays who are forced to migrate. However, it seems the keynote speaker, Larry Chang (gay and forced to migrate) was under the same mistaken impression. He addressed himself to the homeless gays in New Kingston, and said he hoped some of them were present in the audience. He was the only speaker to offer some kind of solution for the problems of our homeless gay men. 

The attorney who spoke confirmed what is known - that Jamaican gay men who apply for asylum have few problems getting it. So the topic of the symposium was essentially a non-issue for the LGBT community. No wonder there needed to be no "next steps" or no action such as fund-raising or deepening of partnerships to solve a problem however identified.. 

Such a pity the symposium was not used as a catalyst for addressing the challenges gay and lesbian youth face when they are thrown out of their homes and join forces to survive on Kingston's volatile streets. But that may have needed a different event with organisers making different "considered decisions" and presentations targeting different goals.

The press release factory kicks into effect again, see what you make of all this folks but it is clear what is at work here and my voice will not be closed by the establishment as a recent comment to one of my audiopost/podcast on the eviction issue of the J in the context of the homelessness matter over time from a former Management Committee member of JFLAG reflects the culture that still resides there:

I am concerned: In a homophobic society, is it fair to expect J-FLAG to easily find a home? Is it fair to compare the homelessness of these young men with the homelessness of J-FLAG? The bigger picture is being missed, I think. It seems as if there is some gloating over the officelessness of J-FLAG, as if that helps the homeless men. Officelessness is not comparable to HOMElessness! Bellyaching about the loss of a space by J-FLAG is less a problem for J-FLAG than it is for those served by the organisation!

I just saw it...and i waiting to know who is the producer and the writer and the person speaking to ask them a few questions of my own..hopefully some light will be shed soon

"We are pretending here as if J-FLAG is awash with cash to support a safe house. The thinking and introspection necessary is for us to strategise as a community to make the work being done by organisations such a J-FLAG possible."

it is obvious we have a long way yet to go on anything especially social justice issues on the ground and I am glad I saw the criticism of my audio entry as those usually are remained hidden. I am just beside myself with the clear blatant disregard for the least amongst us save and except when one of them gets really hurt or maimed then we see the PR goes into full effect crying homophobia!

more on my podcast:

Also in the Observer May 26, 2013

Youth homelessness is no joke

Residents say gays take over Barbican house

UPDATE June 5, 2013 - the video finally has arrived watch and listen carefully

Peace and tolerance

H

Study reveals 57 percent of population tolerant of homosexuals in Trinidad

A study of general attitudes of local citizens towards homosexuals has found that more than half — 57 percent of the persons polled, were tolerant, or accepting of gays. Thirty six percent were “potentially homophobic” while eight percent were unsure.

According to director of Caribbean Development Research Services (CDRES) Peter Wickham, “Tolerant means they tolerate homosexuals, accepting means they are accepting that most of us can distinguish between someone who says I deal with you and distance, and someone who says I want to embrace you.”

He said the information gathered suggested that TT was not a homophobic society.

“It is a society in which the level of acceptance of homosexuals is greater than rejection.”

CDRES Inc, which is based in Barbados carried out the survey earlier this year. It involved a sample of just over 1,000 persons representative of the population in sex and age.

The findings were revealed yesterday at a press briefing at the All Saints Anglican Church Hall, Woodbrook on the eve of today’s observance of International Day Against Homophobia and Transphobia. It found that people with gay family, or friends, were less likely to be homophobic. According to the data — 73 percent reported having gay friends, 68 percent had gay family members while 51 percent had no gay friends, and 56 percent no gay family members.

Wickham said, “a driver of acceptance and tolerance is the extent that people had gay friends or family members.” Less Trinidadians admitted to having gay family members but the number with gay friends was “quite high.”

The research found the 75 percent of people considered violence against gays, or sexual minorities to be discrimination. Wickham found this was striking, considering that the level of acceptance was not close to 75 percent. Another noteworthy observation was that while the majority of persons opposed the decriminalising of criminal sanction against homosexuality, they opposed violence, and supported human rights. On the question of the political impact of a gay stance, persons were asked to state which political party they supported, and if the party changed its stance on gay issues, if this would affect their vote.

There were equal numbers of persons from the political parties saying they would or would not change. Fifty-six percent said it would not make a difference on their vote.

meanwhile:

The Trinidad Express reported

A little more than half of the local population is tolerant or accepting of gay persons and tackling a gay agenda may not actually be a death knell for political parties, a Caribbean Development Research Services Inc (Cadres) survey has suggested.

Cadres has conducted a poll of just over 1,000 citizens on behalf of the Coalition Advocating for the Inclusion of Sexual Orientation (CAISO), that the latter hopes will shed some light on the local attitudes towards homosexuality and engender more interest in the rights of such persons by the State.

The survey, which CAISO said it has tried fruitlessly in the past to have done with support from the State, has shown that 56 per cent of citizens are either tolerant or accepting of the gay/lesbian/bisexual/transgender (LGBT) community.

Thirty-six per cent of those surveyed were homophobic and eight per cent were not clear of their positions on LGBT persons and issues.

The results of the poll were disclosed at a CAISO press conference at the All Saint’s Anglican Church, corner of Woodford and Marli Streets, Port of Spain, yesterday.

Colin Robinson, the head of CAISO, said the poll has shown that Trinidad and Tobago is not the homophobic country that it is commonly perceived to be and the results confirm that it is possible for all people to be part of developing the nation.

Peter Wickham of Cadres said while it is expected that some persons may have chosen to fabricate their responses, it is felt that the results are largely representative of an existing overall view.

Interviews for the poll were conducted face-to-face and candidates were asked to self-identify their sexual orientation.

Candidates were also asked their political preferences and were asked whether a political party’s decision to tackle gay issues would affect their decisions at the polls.

Wickham admitted, however, that candidates were not asked whether they would be swayed for or against.

The results among those with an allegiance to any of the existing parties showed 49 per cent saying their chosen party’s position on gay issues would make a difference, while 51 per cent said it would not.

Wickham said it is also felt that voters, who appear to vote largely on the basis of race, were unlikely to cross racial lines to be swayed by a party’s gay agenda.

Possibly the inaugural survey of its kind, Wickham said no previous data could be found for the sake of comparisons on changing attitudes but the recently concluded survey will be important to building such data.

The poll was conducted here and in Guyana with sponsorship from the British High Commission, while it was conducted in Barbados with the assistance of the State.

The poll showed that 73 per cent of candidates in Trinidad have gay friends that the Christian community appears to be more tolerant.

However, support for the LGBT community came yesterday from head of the Indian Women’s Organisation, Pandita Indrani Rampersad, who said religious groups, of all of society’s sectors, should be the ones to find the compassion and strength to stand up for and support fellow humans who are being vilified and oppressed.

“If we can’t support our fellow humans, then what are we?,” Rampersad said.

The unofficial practice by churches in using marriage to cure homosexuality

Hello readers,

I held on to this post until today International Day against Homophobia and Transphobia, IDAHOT and also Children’s month to highlight another challenge and related social issue out there for LGBT people here in Jamaica. In a follow up discussion on LOVE 101FM’s Morning Watch hosted by theologian Reverend Clinton Chisholm dealt with the issue of supposed heterosexual spouses of homosexual partners known or unbeknownst to them on the strength of a letter to the Gleaner’s editors on May 13, 2013, the poll question of the day dealt with the issue as well and some of the answers were as expected espousing sheer ignorance and indifference:

“It should never even by thought of by anyone”

“There is no way to stop a person from being a gay, that’s not the church business”

“That only shows that they have no knowledge of the dark kingdom, being gay is caused by a spirit”

“The only treatment for sin is repentance”

“.......... Homosexuality cannot be cured by marriage it is a demonic force of darkness............”

“ ........... a scriptural biblical mockery ................”

“Marriage does not fix that behaviour it can worsen it .................... "

Guests on the show were (anti gay) Psychologist Dr Leachim Semaj (formerly known as Michael James) who seems not to follow the DSM’s guidelines on homosexuality, Dr Reverend Neil Walker – a Guyanese living in the states who also runs a reparative outfit, the letter writer a Jamaican living in Miami Florida nurse Mrs. Debbie Thomas Brown who also runs a faith based outreach and advocacy site South Florida Connect Inc for other wives or women who have found themselves in marriages or relationships with a down low man or vice versa.

The discussion for the most part seems level but what bothered me was there were no guests representing the MSM side of the equation but I shouldn’t be surprised supposed discourse like this tends to be one sided although the letter’s author made her position quite clear very early in the exchange which to be fair to her was respected as her tone did not come across as homophobic although she did hint to a possible cure without saying it in so many words, although she also used the word “orientation” as opposed to “lifestyle” as done by other anti gay voices.

“..................... my letter to the editor was to bring awareness .............. to open a dialogue that we never seem to have that we should have had a long time ago ................ people misunderstood what I was trying to say ............... as the men who are gay they seem to understand that they can do that to hide their orientation and to make themselves look stronger and appear more effective .......”

“....... because of our culture in Jamaica that treat homosexuals in a bad way ......”

She continued that the church is not paying attention to what has been happening and women are being hurt. Dr Semaj weighed that deception is the issue as persons use that reality to cover up their behaviour. He mentioned the married but just for the record bit as well that exists in social circles. He said persons deliberately or consciously set out to destroy another person’s life as persons present themselves as one entity he then made the disease connection where he said many wives were at risk at HIV/AIDS, I found that a bit problematic as it tacitly presents the disease as a homosexual one even after all these years although we must take into account the high rates of infection in the MSM population. My other concern was innate bisexuality was never brought up in the exchange even though the cross infection was hinted to.

What if the partner was innately bisexual but due to fear or recrimination did not or could not disclose his same gender attraction as well?

Would that be deception altogether on his part or the withholding of information with disastrous consequences? Many persons would fear that during courtship that might be the end of the formation of the union and other more far reaching consequences with family and social standing.

Dr Semaj continued that in the development of the relationship all the cards must be dealt face up, that is easy for him to say as a psychologist tell that to the man who has a decision to make knowing our own homophobia and indeed biphobia from within the gay community as well as they are also seen as disease carriers and misguided or confused, there are many other layers that this exchange never even came close to addressing. The denial or ambivalence upon learning the information was briefly examined where Dr Semaj juxtaposed the issue of incest as well where blame has to go somewhere in that case the child in a down low case however self blame or hate may set in and the feeling of competing with a man for another man or the acceptance or tolerance of another woman as the extra marital partner works to find out it is a man is too much in some case, it also raises self esteem concerns for the woman involved. “The purpose of the defence mechanism is to preserve ego, preserve the self ...... you have to put the blame somewhere else ...........” after a while the whole thing starts to crumble. He said women require a lot of work to put the blame where it really should be and move on to healing.

The other guest Rev Dr Walker spoke to his familiarity with the down low phenomenon in the United States as he runs an outfit that address such issues, the rift also between mega churches versus small churches where pastors are sometimes labelled as mumblers came through as he made the point that it is easier for a down low man to camouflage himself in larger populated congregations that his smaller outfit. After declaring his heterosexuality (with full support from Dr Semaj – “heterosexual body, mind & spirit” other guests laughing) as it were he continued on the point of his referral system where churches send him clients where he addresses the females who suffer from the fallout of the secret coming to light. He highlighted the emotional rollercoaster and the devastation the women feel. Reverend Chisholm brought the down low clergy ambit in the mix where Dr Walker again touched on the mega church versus small church issue and Bishop Eddie Long’s recent troubles, he lamented that pastors such as Bishop Long consider themselves superstars as they command mega churches and are immune to the issue of the down low phenomenon, he criticised Bishop Long saying he had an opportunity to come clean instead resorting to the infamous five stone comment he made in response to the allegations of inappropriate behaviour with male members.

Nurse Thomas Brown brought her own experience to bear with her near miss marriage to a down low man and her emotional turmoil that led to her research and formation of her advocacy group. She lamented that local churches have this issue and it is the place where other down low men come and use the covertness to meet and hide their relationship. She pointed out clearly that a gay man cannot recover from his homosexuality through marriage, “ .......... that will never happen through marriage ......” one thing was clear that she was not one of those guests as is customary to be spoon fed points in the thrust to drive the point home. She continued that it was a public health issue but the figures she quoted seem unverifiable as she said about 56,000 MSM may be here and of down low men 50% of them are in relationships with heterosexual women, she never provided her source for this data that flowed easily of her tongue.

She continued on the point of social pressure and the noveau intelligentsia who marry into a heterosexual set up to become accepted or regularise themselves although she seemed to have overlooked the commensurate side to this in that many single men are known to be gay and do exist unperturbed by open hostility at the upper socio economic levels it is when one starts to descend the ladder that the caustic responses sometimes translating itself via violence get more pronounced. The aesthetics was briefly examined as well where she rightfully looked at effeminacy, masculinity and profiling and that most down low men bear no discerning signs. “They can hide in a mega church, they can hide in any church because they look as macho and as masculine as the next straight guy, you cannot look at them and tell our women don’t understand that because Jamaican women are accustomed to them being effeminate ... and they are not like that.......you will never see it if that’s what you are looking for.” She then promoted her website.

Nurse Brown concluded that for women who find themselves in this situation that there is nothing wrong with them and that they should try to move on as best as possible, she said “......... you cannot change him, you did not make him gay, don’t listen to ignorant people who are gonna ask you, he married you so he must not have been gay when he married you? He was, he just did a very good job of hiding it from you and everyone else, so don’t blame yourself for your spouse being gay, it has nothing to do with you and don’t ever think that you can change him because yes you cannot compete with a man .........” she went on that heterosexual men also complain about having lesbian wives meeting them in church in some instances but are afraid to expose them. Dr Semaj brought up the threesome piece or ménage-a-trois which locally for all intents and purposes I dare say is very popular just go to any strip club and see open erotic lesbian themed entertainment.

Reality coming to the fore here has brought some sense to an exchange about homosexuality it seems only when it hits very close to home that theologians or anti gay voices have to face such reality, as for the deception aspect of this coming out open and honest is still a major issue across the board and in intimate relationships be they gay, bisexual or heterosexual couples, disclosure is also a major complaint I have heard a lot over the years. The matter of advocacy here in Jamaica not matured (only in age it seems) and sophisticated enough cannot be overlooked as my expectations for a fifteen year old agency would be to address if by a tight referral system issues such as this but again another possible outcome of poor leadership and program development crops up again.

Peace and tolerance

H